When we start telling each other what their argument was the discussion is pretty much over.
You said the first statement. You are requiring that the TOE say something which is not required by the TOE, unless you endorse or explain the contradiction I elucidated.
If you've "heard it ALL before" then why didn't this argument occur to you? How do you refute it then, not merely run away from it?
Anyway, before insisting others think "outside the box" how about you think outside that wet-paper-bag. It should be easy, you've heard it all.
Second, with that question I wasn't requiring anything of the TOE. That is a product of your imagination - it's you telling me what my argument is.
Third, the TOE requires a live universe, that's a given, and in that context the dead universe question is a red herring.
Fourth, all of my discussion in this thread stems from the article "Who Designed the Designer?". It's interesting that evolutionists ask that question when the question of the origin of life is off limits re the TOE. How convenient. That is being dishonest, plain and simple.
Fifth, it is very interesting honest evolutionists are concerned about the origin of life question. (Post 201) That is a whole different attitude than one sees here on this thread.
Finally;
Science marches on no matter what any individual will say. Reality is what it is, and any theory is just that, a theory. The closer the theory corresponds to reality, the more "fact" it contains but it is a mistake to confuse the two.
This is a great statement, and one I totally agree with. Who knows what understanding of life as we observe it, and origin of life, the next XXX years will bring. This is exactly why I find the The Origin-of-Life Prize ® so exciting and interesting.